Disallow re-reviewing when reviewers break rules.

[Ace_Arriande]

Let's say a reviewer edits their review after approval (they get checked first, right? I forget) to be something rule-breaking or dishonest. Or something slips past that shouldn't be allowed. Or if it's easy to prove that the reviewer is straight-up lying about the content of the story. Or any other potential reason that could result in a review being removed by staff.

On RR, they used to have the problem where people would just keep on editing their reviews over and over again to submit them time and time again, only to be removed again and again until their review was finally within the rules. Recently, if I recall correctly, they decided to stop letting rule-breaking reviewers repeatedly review the same story. They get 2 or 3 chances or something and that's it now, I think.

Anyways, do that. I've supported the idea for years and it was kind of surprising that it took so long to be implemented over there, and I'm hoping it'll become a feature here sooner rather than later. Though, if it were up to me, I would just straight up disallow a rule-breaking reviewer from re-reviewing a story even once. If they get a review removed for any sort of violation, they shouldn't be allowed to re-review (or even leave a rating) at all since they would have already proven to have ill intentions there. It could even be taken one step further. If somebody is repeatedly getting in trouble over reviews and having their reviews taken down, don't allow them to review or rate any story at all.

And just to clarify, I don't mean reviews that authors report for being misleading because the reader interpreted a story differently than the author did. I mean lying (such as, for example, claiming that a story has pedophilia in it when every character is 18+ and looks/behave like an adult), saying that it has rape when no sex even happens nor is implied, attacking the author themselves, being hateful with any -ism of your choice in the review, and so on. Things that are actually breaking the site's rules, not just reviews that author's dislike because they're negative.

None of this is really a problem here on SH yet, but there's a good chance of these sorts of things happening as the site grows bigger and bigger.

Also, actual standards/rules for reviews would be helpful.

 

[weakwithwords]

Sounds elegant in theory, but in practice, taxing for moderators.

I've only seen one Tony so far ... unless there really are entities like the fictional eTc.

 

[gaylolis]

well, they could just make another account if their other one is banned.

 

[Ace_Arriande]

Sounds elegant in theory, but in practice, taxing for moderators.

I've only seen one Tony so far ... unless there really are entities like the fictional eTc.

On the contrary, it would save moderators work. What's more taxing: having to repeatedly deal with the same person reviewing the same story being reported over and over again, or dealing with it once and then not having to be bothered again unless that person goes through the trouble of making a new account to review it? The only thing that this really changes is that, in the event of a review being removed, they wouldn't be able to review the same story again and potentially cause even more work for the moderators. This protects authors from reviewers posting rule-breaking reviews and then just reuploading the exact same review with slightly different language, improves the community, and saves moderators work. It's a winning situation for everybody involved other than the person breaking the rules in the first place, as far as I'm concerned.

well, they could just make another account if their other one is banned.

That's too much work for the vast majority of people, and it would be extremely easy to detect. If they still get around it, at that point, there's nothing else you can do to prevent such a thing from happening. Still, the majority of offenders would be too lazy for that. I'm sure some people would be petty enough, but not the majority.

 

[TowerGuy]

I like it.
+1 support

 

[gaylolis]

That's too much work for the vast majority of people, and it would be extremely easy to detect. If they still get around it, at that point, there's nothing else you can do to prevent such a thing from happening. Still, the majority of offenders would be too lazy for that. I'm sure some people would be petty enough, but not the majority.

but yeah, like people said, it's always the minority that is the loudest.

some people can be that toxic for no good reason. but if there's a way to severely discourage people from being toxic, and that it's not welcome in this site--i guess it can be a good thing.

 

[BenJepheneT]

Then make it a one shot, report system. Writers can report on a review so Tony wouldn't have to purposefully hunt for them and give them only one chance to really hammer home the reinforced rule (and also having to deal with it ONCE).

 

[binarysoap]

Then make it a one shot, report system. Writers can report on a review so Tony wouldn't have to purposefully hunt for them and give them only one chance to really hammer home the reinforced rule (and also having to deal with it ONCE).

I mean there's already a report button on every review

 

[BenJepheneT]

I mean there's already a report button on every review

well shit, guess the only issue that ever really was there is better moderation

i'll do it for 2 dollars a month Tony pls

 

[AliceShiki]

Tony already manually checks each review before it is approved. And if you edit a review, it goes back to approval queue.

There is no need for this kind of system. If a need for it arises, then Tony might implement it.

So far, NU has grown really well without it though, so I doubt Scribbly will need it.

Ah, as for review guidelines... I dunno why Scribbly doesn't have a page for it (or at least I didn't find it), but they're probably about the same as NU guidelines: https://www.novelupdates.com/review-guidelines/

 

[Ace_Arriande]

Tony already manually checks each review before it is approved. And if you edit a review, it goes back to approval queue.

There is no need for this kind of system. If a need for it arises, then Tony might implement it.

I worship Tony as much as the next person does, but he doesn't manually read every single story that's being reviewed. How can he know if a review isn't including outright lies in it without reading every story in its entirety? Also, if the site grows as large as its competitors, then it won't be possible for Tony to do all of the moderation work on their own unless they plan on turning SH into their 24/7 job.

So far, NU has grown really well without it though, so I doubt Scribbly will need it.

To be fair, NU is more about other people's stories rather than our own. The original creators of the stories most likely never see the reviews nor even know of them, so they're not exactly affected by the reviews. If the reviews targeted translation groups, that would be different, but I almost never see them do so from the times that I've looked at NU's review sections. Here on SH, though, reviewers are directly approaching the creators themselves and thus will have greater impact on the creator's mental health and whatnot in the events of somebody repeatedly re-reviewing a story with the intent to slander or be hateful. I would love for SH to not need this system, but I'm just looking at what happened with RR where I'm friends with multiple people who were targeted by reviews that would start off as hateful then, over the course of 3+ re-edits due to being removed over and over again, the review would finally be acceptable enough to not get taken down. But, at that point, why allow it at all? The ill intention of the reviewer is already known. They're not reviewing in good faith and everybody knows it at that point. It basically becomes a game of "I'm not touching you" while holding a fist right in front of somebody's face after having already punched them in the face 3 times.

 

[AliceShiki]

I worship Tony as much as the next person does, but he doesn't manually read every single story that's being reviewed. How can he know if a review isn't including outright lies in it without reading every story in its entirety? Also, if the site grows as large as its competitors, then it won't be possible for Tony to do all of the moderation work on their own unless they plan on turning SH into their 24/7 job.

Ah, that's what the report system is there for! Or at least I think so...

Like... Tony approves reviews that seem to make sense and follow his guidelines regarding reviews, but he can't know if a review is actively lying about a story or not.

So... When a report occurs because someone outright lied in their review, my guess is that a mod quickly skims through the story to see if the points raised up make sense or don't... Or at least that's my guess, I honestly dunno how reports are handled.

Ah, and Tony doesn't do all moderation work, that's why mods exist!
The only things Tony does exclusively is approving reviews and developing the site AFAIK.
Everything else is mostly handled by the mods I believe, or at least it was like that in NU... Though Scribbly has less mods, so maybe Tony is somewhat overworked atm.

To be fair, NU is more about other people's stories rather than our own. The original creators of the stories most likely never see the reviews nor even know of them, so they're not exactly affected by the reviews. If the reviews targeted translation groups, that would be different, but I almost never see them do so from the times that I've looked at NU's review sections. Here on SH, though, reviewers are directly approaching the creators themselves and thus will have greater impact on the creator's mental health and whatnot in the events of somebody repeatedly re-reviewing a story with the intent to slander or be hateful. I would love for SH to not need this system, but I'm just looking at what happened with RR where I'm friends with multiple people who were targeted by reviews that would start off as hateful then, over the course of 3+ re-edits due to being removed over and over again, the review would finally be acceptable enough to not get taken down. But, at that point, why allow it at all? The ill intention of the reviewer is already known. They're not reviewing in good faith and everybody knows it at that point. It basically becomes a game of "I'm not touching you" while holding a fist right in front of somebody's face after having already punched them in the face 3 times.

Aye, that's a pretty valid point!

Just uhn... Well, I think/hope our community is more friendly than RR, so hopefully it won't reach the point where those things happen... And like... Even if they do start happening, I think it can be handled on a case by case basis for the most part? Unless it becomes something seriously widespread of course.

So uhn... Atm a feature like that seems unnecessary to me. Though I can see that it might maybe become necessary in the future if this kind of issue starts occuring! >.<

It's just that... Rn it feels like a solution to a problem that currently doesn't exist. Sometimes it is good to make measures to prevent problems from arriving in the future, but in this case it feels more like a measure that should only exist to solve problems, not to prevent them.

 

[weakwithwords]

This is cake. You must eat it. The cake is a lie.

This is a false review. You must report it. Author take your tums.

What I like with cooking is that I can literally eat my mistakes. With erroneous writing, claiming you'll eat your words is just hyperbolic lip service.

I should ask explicitly. Are there other moderators besides Tony?

 

[Ace_Arriande]

So uhn... Atm a feature like that seems unnecessary to me. Though I can see that it might maybe become necessary in the future if this kind of issue starts occuring! >.<

It's just that... Rn it feels like a solution to a problem that currently doesn't exist. Sometimes it is good to make measures to prevent problems from arriving in the future, but in this case it feels more like a measure that should only exist to solve problems, not to prevent them.

That's fair. And like I said, I don't think it's necessarily that useful right now either. It's more for future-proofing than anything else. Implement it sooner rather than later so that when it does potentially become needed later on, it's already here to prevent it from ever becoming an issue in the first place. Definitely not something that should be a high priority right now. I personally feel like it would be good to prevent it from becoming a problem rather than waiting for it to become one to solve, but I wouldn't care as long as it's quickly solved when it does become a problem.

 

[Alverost]

Ah, and Tony doesn't do all moderation work, that's why mods exist!
The only things Tony does exclusively is approving reviews and developing the site AFAIK.
Everything else is mostly handled by the mods I believe, or at least it was like that in NU... Though Scribbly has less mods, so maybe Tony is somewhat overworked atm.

Currently for the website, Tony is the only "mod"/owner so he's handling all the manual stuff that's required from what I know.

 

[AliceShiki]

but I wouldn't care as long as it's quickly solved when it does become a problem.

Let's hope this when is actually an if instead! \(^^)/

Currently for the website, Tony is the only "mod"/owner so he's handling all the manual stuff that's required from what I know.

Wafu! >.<

*gwumbles about Workaholic Tony-chan* She should get some main site mods! >.<